-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Sarah afiya/issue 21/improve api extraction #24
Sarah afiya/issue 21/improve api extraction #24
Conversation
# Conflicts: # documentation_quality_analysis/analyze_library/signature_matcher/python_signature_matcher.py
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
just left one refactoring suggestion as opposed to commenting things (Feel free to ignore for now and open an issue that you can revisit later)
else: | ||
method = _get_parsed_method_details(method=description, class_name=class_name) | ||
signatures.append(method) | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
does it makes sense to somehow keep this "more generic" parsing mechanism still available in the code? For example, have different parsing strategies that can be called/used, and then just use the specific one for the format?
# else: | ||
# method = _get_parsed_method_details(method=description, class_name=class_name) | ||
# if method: | ||
# signatures.append(method) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can you remove the commented code? See above.
Refactored the function 'get_signatures_from_section' to get APIs from a fixed HTML format and updated unit test to cover all the intended functionalities
Solves #21